Re: vogons vs Users

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

QC,
    I'm going to try my hardest to be civil because I have a genuine,
non-sarcastic question to ask you. Granted, it is probably 80% hypothetical,
but I dare you to declare it irrelevant.

    Suppose some softco comes up with an awesome, innovative application.
Something totally cool, and it's not your average coding practices that
produced this. Some new algorithm that makes the whole thing. Now, some
years later, they abandon it, no longer selling it, but retaining the
copyright. "Piracy" is of course illegal, so the options as you have pointed
out, are

A) Try to find it on the used market (am I wrong, or did I see you hint that
not even you consider this a realistic fair option?)

B) Write your own software (as you have so sarcastically pointed out before)

    Well, I have somewhat agreed with you on point B, many times it's also
the most desirable. Sure, a few lame idiots don't have that option
available, but I feel no sympathy for them either. There's just one
problem...

    You can't, by law.

    Copyright infringement, or perhaps patent infringement, is what this is
called. By US law (can't speak for other countries) an algorithm itself it
intellectual property. The binary, well even I can't defend 'pirating' the
binary, but when the algorithm itself is unavailable, what then? Option B is
no longer available. Option A was never really an option.

    Well, I guess that sucks. You could write the util/app just for
yourself, 'pirating' the algorithm, but even if NO ONE EVER FINDS OUT or the
COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS UNAWARE, it's still wrong and certainly illegal. Well,
not to be discouraged, because an honest law-abiding citizen always has
options that are within the law, you click on the ebay bookmark. Bingo.
Within 2 days, you've found just what you are looking for. And oh my god,
through some miracle it happens to be a reasonable price by anyone's
standards. The seller has good feedback, he has the package to you in 3 days
time. It has all the origial documentation, still in its shrinkwrap. Hot
damn. You open it up like a little kid on christmas morning, and the piece
of paper right on top is the EULA. You start reading it, and in between the
fine print and that incomprehensible language understood by wease.... er,
lawyers, the message is clear. You don't have a legal right to use this
software. The person selling it to you, and perhaps you yourself, have just
committed a crime. It seems the license is non-transferable. Valid only for
the original registered purchaser. Sure the media may technically belong to
you, and you can even use the floppies, providing you format them first.

    How possible is this scenario? Oh, by any means uncommon, one might even
say rare. Does it happen? All but the part about a reaonable human being
giving a flying fuck what the EULA says. Is this trend dissappearing, or
increasing? Certainly increasing, exponentially. Am I bullshitting, or can I
actually cite an example that a normal person would recognize? I am not
bullshitting. QC, if you are as computer literate as you probably like to
claim, know that I could list no less than 3 full pages worth of current
software, and certainly not less than half a page of Apple// vintage
software.

    My question for you is this, QC. How can you possibly say that this is
in any way reasonable, without resorting to juvenile word games, or ignoring
the heart of the matter?

For the rest of you, I have a few predictions.
#1 QC resorts to name calling.
#2 He manages to find the one typo I somehow missed, and use it as an excuse
to ignore this post.
#3 He claims that the scenario is incredibly rare, is an exaggeration, or is
contrived to artificially refute his otherwise 'perfect' philosophy.
#4 He'll claim that even though it might be entirely unreasonable, it's
still illegal and therefore morally, and ethically wrong.
#5 He'll use the 'word' turlette.
#6 He'll co-opt the comp.sys.apple2 forum for his own, even though those on
the opposite side of the debate disown him.
#7 He'll continue to post, but never on any meaningful topic, never to help
someone, never to reveal a secret bit of technical wisdom that is otherwise
undocumented.
#8 But most of all, most importantly, he'll never actually answer my main
question. He'll tear it to pieces, and argue each minor point out of
context, he'll demand proof for things that are completely obvious, but
lacking any official statistical data, he'll throw every fallacy in the book
at it. But we'll never hear an answer.